What's new

Why A Medium / Heavy Strike Aircraft For Defense of Pakistan?

@MastanKhan, you are right I am being silly, should have remembered the famous Mark Twain quote which I will modify a bit so as to no offend you "Never argue with a ___, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference". Please accept my apologies Sir and continue regaling us with this novel concept of "flanking".
 
The PAF's job with its limited resources and facing an enemy 10 times its size is to deny airspace to the enemy (which would be a huge achievement), and this includes tactical strikes against "enemy installations and strategic targets" to the extent that it makes the bad man slow down (maybe not stop)..

Sir, The PAF has been forced into this doctrine of "credible defence / defensive capability" by financial constraints, now that the situation is changing, it remains to be seen how long this doctrine will stick around.

The PAF nor IAF is stupid enough to specifically target civilians (not talking about collateral damage). This kind of free for all reckless behavior among two nuclear powered nations already at a razors edge embroiled in conventional warfare might actually lead to the unthinkable. This possibility would force the international community to take action against the said nuclear powered country who's attacking civilians and then guess what, you will face an attempt at being provided "freedom" to your country courtesy the allied nations (primarily the entire west). Possibly China will help extract you out of some of the mess up to the point it does not infringe on its overall interests, but in the meanwhile it would hurt and yes it would leave a mark.

When MK says "Targeting civilians" he means "Civilian infrastructure" like the oil depot in Karachi was targeted in 1971

Lastly, having a credible conventional force is also reassurance to your enemy, that you will not jump the nuclear gun.
 
@The Accountant : brother, you are again missing the point. The Chinese target is Taiwan, not the US. The only time that Chinese bombers would attack the US is in the South China Sea. And tell me grown up, how would you propose that PAF handle the IAF during a crisis? Because between the Rafale (in future) and Su-30MKI let alone M2K5 and Mig-29, you are going to be at a severe numerical disadvantage. Add to that the fact that S400 will be picking your fighters off from a distance you honestly think PAF will have the resources to launch strikes against IAF SAM batteries and FOBs? Those fighters will be too busy keeping IAF strike packages at bay and the notion that a ballistic missile strike is a reasonable response to initial IAF incursions will raise the specter of a nuclear strike which would likely lead to India retaliating with nuclear response even if Pakistan's ballistic missile had a conventional warhead. Any attempt to launch incursions into India would likely fail with PAF fighters being shot down. So what would your response be to this scenario?
 
Sir, The PAF has been forced into this doctrine of "credible defence / defensive capability" by financial constraints, now that the situation is changing, it remains to be seen how long this doctrine will stick around.



When MK says "Targeting civilians" he means "Civilian infrastructure" like the oil depot in Karachi was targeted in 1971

Lastly, having a credible conventional force is also reassurance to your enemy, that you will not jump the nuclear gun.
Yes Khafee the situation is slowly changing, there is great effort being put into finding a a "long legged" fighter bomber mainly to protect the sea lanes as we have never had to this extent due to the development of CPEC. Will the addition of such fighter make India re-calibrate , will such fighter be used in calculated strikes, the answer to both is yes. I don't however see a change in PAF's strategic doctrine. Yes absolutely agree with you on conventional force being a deterrent towards a nuclear approach, Finally in war Kemari is a strategic target not a civilian target (it stores jet fuel and diesel along with other fuels used by our war machinery), the water supply to a city for instance is a civilian target, there is a grey area and a thin line and it is often crossed, however, when the line is crossed quite clearly then eye brows are raised.
 
Yes Khafee the situation is slowly changing, there is great effort being put into finding a a "long legged" fighter bomber mainly to protect the sea lanes as we have never had to this extent due to the development of CPEC. Will the addition of such fighter make India re-calibrate , will such fighter be used in calculated strikes, the answer to both is yes. I don't however see a change in PAF's strategic doctrine. Yes absolutely agree with you on conventional force being a deterrent towards a nuclear approach, Finally in war Kemari is a strategic target not a civilian target (it stores jet fuel and diesel along with other fuels used by our war machinery), the water supply to a city for instance is a civilian target, there is a grey area and a thin line and it is often crossed, however, when the line is crossed quite clearly then eye brows are raised.

"Long Legged fighters" - They are not only used for "protecting sea lanes" but have multiple other uses as well, all the way from long loiter time in A2A config, to bomb trucks. One only has to see how the F15 evolved.

PAF's strategic doctrine - with the addition of new long range hardware, it will change. It is inevitable.
Just as an example, despite having the M2K-9 the most advanced Mirage in the world the UAEAF had serious operational restrictions in terms of offensive capability. When the Blk60's achieved FOC, that equation changed.

When the IAF bombed residential areas around air bases in '71 were they strategic tardgets or civilian targets?

"Besides the damage caused to the naval facilities at Karachi harbour, the attacks caused serious damage to civilian life and material. In their air attacks the Indian pilots missed their targets and the heavy explosives fell upon the civilian population like in the neighbourhoods of Gulbahar, Agra Taj Colony, and the like. This created panic among the citizens and many moved houses. The people from upcountry living in Karachi rushed to their hometowns. The naval and air attacks on Karachi continued till there was a ceasefire after Dhaka fell."

http://www.dawn.com/news/708855
 
It would be more prudent to look at the threat we face and then try to chart a solution with the resources we have(and the limitations we have in the effective utilization of those resources).

Agreed. Have been trying to get everyone to think along these lines.

During 2001, facing a raggedy enemy in the Taliban the Americans used whatever immediate asset they had. However, for most of the time the B-52 was used for its endurance and not its payload. Loitering overhead and dropping one or two weapons guided precisely to their targets by gps.

The carpet bombing was a pre-planned, deliberate shock and awe strategy and is actually what drove the Taliban from the front lines

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...1174/B52-carpet-bombing-can-oust-Taliban.html

By Alan Philps in Rabat and Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent

12:01AM GMT 01 Nov 2001



AMERICA intensified its attacks on Taliban front-line positions yesterday, launching the first raids by giant B52 bombers north of Kabul.

The appearance of B52s cheered anti-Taliban commanders, who have spent the past week deriding American "pin pricks", and raised their hopes that the enemy positions might at last collapse. As a B52 barrelled across the sky, its four vapour trails clearly visible, the whole landscape appeared to shake.

It sent down one salvo of bombs, setting off a series of at least 15 explosions over a distance of half a mile, before returning for a second attack. Previous air raids on the strategic sector of the Taliban front line guarding the approaches to Kabul have been carried out by smaller fighter-bombers which release one or two bombs at a time.

The attacks continued throughout the day, and commanders said that it was the most intense since America began bombing the front line on Oct 17. "This is the most successful day so far," said Alou Zeki, commander of a sector of the front to the west of the Soviet-built Bagram air base. "If it continues like this, the front line will collapse and the Taliban can be defeated."

The intensified bombing was apparently in response to criticism from congressmen that America was not making enough use of its military clout. The B52 Stratofortress was used in the bombing of Cambodia, to destroy Iraq's Republican Guard during the Gulf war and against Yugoslav troops in Kosovo.

...

Yesterday's raids have long been sought by the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance to make up for their weakness in men, materiel and strategic location, as the Taliban control high ground on the approaches to Kabul. Northern Alliance officials have said repeatedly that three days of carpet bombing of the front lines would open the way to the capital.

But Alou Zeki was careful not to say when the march on the capital might begin. "I am glad they are bombing the troop concentrations, where there are no civilians to be killed," he said. "This is really weakening the Taliban." After the B52 raid, the whole front line - which can be silent for days - burst into life, with exchanges of mortar and machine gun fire.

There was a new buzz in the bazaars of the opposition territory that the phoney war might be drawing to a close. The streets seemed more warlike as soldiers adopted winter camouflage. There were reports that Russia was providing armour to boost the Northern Alliance's inventory. But no tanks have been seen crossing the icy pass through the Hindu Kush.

There has been great disappointment on the opposition side - and equal relief among the Taliban - that the American front-line raids have so far been relatively restrained. Reports from Taliban-controlled areas suggest that the militia are constantly on the move to avoid being hit.

Anti-Taliban commanders say they see signs of the enemy creeping back to their bases at night. But the air campaign has yet to deliver a blow that would persuade the Taliban that the balance of forces has turned against them.

From above, 'pin point' attacks don't do much against well entrenched enemies.

The PAF beat similar adversaries in SWAT not by dropping a ton of bombs, but by sending one or two EXACTLY where the enemy was. If carpet bombing was to have any actual value then the scores of fire bombing raids on Japan would have caused them to surrender; but determined as they were they did not.

First, I am heavily against using carpet bombing inside our borders on people who in the end are Pakistanis. Such rampant display of power is best avoided because we need to win their hearts and mind. But against the Afghan Army financed by Indian/American money, after all we have done for them, the idea is to show massive force and open their eyes for good.

A determined enemy is killed and that is the ONLY solution to it. If the Afghan is determined in their hatred then the only solution lies in killing their anti-Pakistan leadership in a quick and precise manner. A night of terror with targets picked off with accuracy and precision in a coordinated fashion that does not even give them the time to cower away or run into the mountains as has been their age old practice. At the same time, we have to protect the rest of the Afghan civilians; the simple folk who care little for alliances or whether the money flows from India , America or timbuktoo... but more for their household and flock.

The scenario is a sudden agglomeration of forces preparing for attack from Afghanistan along our borders. This may be tens of miles away from the border. The size is much more than the tiny cross-border skirmishes where our artillery makes mince meat out of them, and the distance is also considerable. There wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be any civilians when the enemy amasses its forces. We should react decisively against such an outcome. Missiles are evocative of Saddam era tactics and I am do not favour them against a weak opposition. A massive aerial assault conducted with impunity shows them who is the boss exactly.

That is the domain of precision weapons of which the PAF has plenty and more and more platforms to employ them. Now what is needed are smaller precision weapons that can be carried a lot more. Those we can use in the east as well. You dont need a 500lb bomb to kill a tank, a good tandem charge on a missile that weighs a total of 100lbs or a mixed blast of 250lbs on a bomb is enough.
Columns of tanks will stop under a carpet bombing but basic probability means that many of them will survive and regroup. They will however stop and be severely demoralized if a large percentage of them or at least the lead and read tanks get killed by a accurate hit; giving the impression that a large number have died.


You dont need to carry many of them on a single aircraft which presents a single tempting target especially against an enemy that outnumbers you and outguns you as such 3 to 1. You carry them on smaller more maneuverable targets that can get in closer without being detected and still be able to deliver their payload whilst taking one or two losses.

Some visuals of carpet bombing. Looks like a super efficient way of assured destruction


Also, let us agree that bombers against an Indian land based attack would be a suicide mission. So we don't need to discuss that again. So, back to the western border and that traitorous Afghan army.

Let us discuss some numbers while we are at it. Now, since I am not well versed in the destruction power of PAF's Air to surface munitions, I'll make an assumption and you can correct me. I envisage that in one bombing run a fighter can destroy 1 tank with a 500 pounder, or 1 artillery piece, or 1 vehicle, or 25 infantrymen clustered together in a tight spot. Out of nowhere, I will assume the bomber can make 10 passes before going back (again you will correct me if I am wrong). That means 1 fighter can take out at max 10 vehicles or 250 infantrymen out in the open with nothing to protect them.

If the Afghan army plans war, they will be coming at us with a force of 10000 men and 250 armor/artillery. These guys will be mobile, on the move, and as soon as the first wave of attacks comes will likely disperse, only to regroup later. That means at least 25 sorties against the vehicles, and 250 sorties against the infantry. Compare the cost of that with what a bomber could achieve.

In general, it is only rational that a bomber would definitely achieve more. It's why its called a bomber!!! So the question is, what is the best approximation we can get? Or, is it possible to buy some sort of fighter/bomber that will be relevant on multiple fronts?

Anyway, this is mission profile 1 where I propose A bomber would be useful, WITHOUT specifying which bomber.

Are we in agreement so far?
 
There are a Quote in URDU
Chadar Dekh kr Paon Phailao
We have to defend our area and we do not need to fly aircraft from sargodha to hit Asam Province
India needs big aircraft like su 27 or 35 or mig 29 for long flight to hit targets.
We need clever fighters and armament like F-16 mirage 5 or attack heli which could hit areas near LOC and defend own land. Pakistan's doctrine was never attacking it is still defending own land and we are Alhamdulillah good in this field.
 
At this point of time, I assume the attack has to be with Ra'ad missiles.
It is questionable if Pakistan has enough Ra'ad missiles to do more than token attacks.
Using them up would deplete the nuclear deterrent.
And your assumption is based on what? Your hatred for Pakistan?

STOP trolling and get lost .

I know what the media reported about the fall of Taliban. Women discarded the burqa and men cut off their beards. And actual reports from the ground filter through the grapevine at some point. The West in general and people like yourself like to portray this as the 'true Afghani people'. I know the reality and I shall not get deluded. In the end, truth will out and everyone will see. Wait and watch.



Well, my question which no one on the thread has directly answered but which I have surmised myself is: can F-16s and JF-17s carry out carpet bombing? I have a feeling the answer is no. The second question then is, what would be a good fighter/bomber aircraft to carry out carpet bombing? Or is this capability limited to specialized behemoths like the B-52?

I am going to write a post on this thread about naval bombers... just haven't got around to it yet...



See above.
Thermobaric bombs, to some extent, can replace carpet bombing.
 
@MastanKhan @Khafee @war&peace @Jammer

Had a read at your discussion. One important point to consider is that the current financial restraints based strategy gives a one-dimensional threat to the enemy. They already know that all attacks will come from the west. Long range bombers who are able to avoid radars and AWACS through a longer route will force the enemy to spend more budget trying to defend all of its territory.

Missiles are not always an option because the ballistic missiles will be countered (to some extent) by the S-400. Also, the enemy will utilize all of its territory against your. Batteries of S-400 can turn the Andaman Islands into a veritable fortress from where the enemy can launch missile attacks himself. Over time, I expect India (in consort with Israel) to get the capability to attack ballistic missiles very early in their flight path.

Long range bombers coming in from the sea, or if we are willing to take more risk, using friendly skies over China and then making a last risky jaunt of over Bangladesh and the Bay of Bengal will create that much more headache.

And your assumption is based on what? Your hatred for Pakistan?

STOP trolling and get lost .


Thermobaric bombs, to some extent, can replace carpet bombing.

Thanks. Exactly! But they cannot be used when the forces are head to head because, well...

Well let's not get into how smart Indian planners are.

Secondly, why would the heavy bombers be "Sans fighter escort" ? It would be stupid to assume that escorts or decoys would not be present, but can be expected from you.

As to Su30's, best not to beat your chest too much about them false flagger:
http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2015/06/04/why_the_indian_air_force_has_a_high_crash_rate_43501
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india...viceability/story-CUNvrCuhWdK0w4J6jVecIK.html
http://rstv.nic.in/india-grounds-sukhoi-30-fleet-safety-checks.html

It is entirely logical to conduct a solo bombing mission giving the right EW capabilities or situational intelligence which allow the plane to stay well clear of AWACS and radars. This actually would be a forte of a long range bomber. The enemy might plan for this, but that puts more burden on an enemy tasked with defending huge borders.
 
@The Accountant : brother, you are again missing the point. The Chinese target is Taiwan, not the US. The only time that Chinese bombers would attack the US is in the South China Sea. And tell me grown up, how would you propose that PAF handle the IAF during a crisis? Because between the Rafale (in future) and Su-30MKI let alone M2K5 and Mig-29, you are going to be at a severe numerical disadvantage. Add to that the fact that S400 will be picking your fighters off from a distance you honestly think PAF will have the resources to launch strikes against IAF SAM batteries and FOBs? Those fighters will be too busy keeping IAF strike packages at bay and the notion that a ballistic missile strike is a reasonable response to initial IAF incursions will raise the specter of a nuclear strike which would likely lead to India retaliating with nuclear response even if Pakistan's ballistic missile had a conventional warhead. Any attempt to launch incursions into India would likely fail with PAF fighters being shot down. So what would your response be to this scenario?

Sir I think topic is now evolved previously we were focusing on bombers ... but now it is heavy to medium strike aircarft .. By strike aircraft I assume you mean that a heavy aircraft which is not only capable to engage in aerial combat but also to hit hard the ground forces like su35 ...

I am down to this concept ... there is no ideal way is we could have 3 to 4 platforms in years to come ... One fifth generation ... for air superiroity ,,, second for heavy fighter for providing support to fifth generation after SEAD mission entering enemy air space and take care of all other other roles ... we need su35 typr of aircraft for this role ... third and fourth is air defense and maritime attack role which should be primarily done by f16 and jf17 ...

@CriticalThought I think you will agree with my above post ... we need to have heavy strike aircraft (as f16 is already a medium strike aircraft specially after CFT its range is fine with respect to medium platform ... But this strike aircraft should be like SU35 .. i.e. multirole and not a bomber like B52 or CAS role like A10 and SU25 ...

@MastanKhan @Khafee @war&peace @Jammer

Had a read at your discussion. One important point to consider is that the current financial restraints based strategy gives a one-dimensional threat to the enemy. They already know that all attacks will come from the west. Long range bombers who are able to avoid radars and AWACS through a longer route will force the enemy to spend more budget trying to defend all of its territory.

Missiles are not always an option because the ballistic missiles will be countered (to some extent) by the S-400. Also, the enemy will utilize all of its territory against your. Batteries of S-400 can turn the Andaman Islands into a veritable fortress from where the enemy can launch missile attacks himself. Over time, I expect India (in consort with Israel) to get the capability to attack ballistic missiles very early in their flight path.

Long range bombers coming in from the sea, or if we are willing to take more risk, using friendly skies over China and then making a last risky jaunt of over Bangladesh and the Bay of Bengal will create that much more headache.



Thanks. Exactly! But they cannot be used when the forces are head to head because, well...



It is entirely logical to conduct a solo bombing mission giving the right EW capabilities or situational intelligence which allow the plane to stay well clear of AWACS and radars. This actually would be a forte of a long range bomber. The enemy might plan for this, but that puts more burden on an enemy tasked with defending huge borders.

Brother I agree that surprise attack from east are needed as after introduction of S-400 our current ballistic missiles could failed to meet the target unless we move to hypersonic glide vehicle as s400 has capability to engage ballistic missile in earth upper surface when speed of missile is slow and in order to target nicobar island it will be very easy as missile will be in mid of india ... but striking from east is not the role of PAF ... this role is transferred to PN .. remember 8 submarringes with nuclear tipped cruise missile ... I think those are specifically there to target from an unexpected direction and with very close range to give less reaction time ...

However, this will not substitute the need of heavy multirole strike fighter (not bomber) ....

Send a befitting message to a weaker enemy. The psychological impact is enough to break enemy morale. Factually proven circa 2001 vs. Taliban. Not recommended within our own borders.



Actually all my posts are good posts but you keep missing how I am trying to evolve the discussion over a number of posts. And every time you reply, you ignore what I am painstakingly trying to explain and we come back to 'We need air superiority first'. Now understand the following clearly:

1. Forget how much money we have for a moment. We need a quantitative vision of the ideal. Once we know what the ideal is, we can discuss how best to approximate it.

2. Forget air superiority. It's all about mission planning. Given their longer range, bombers have the luxury to evade enemy radars by travelling long distances and striking from a completely unexpected direction.

3. Forget ballistic/cruise missiles. In places like nicobar and Andaman islands, the enemy can create a veritable fortress where S-400 batteries take out any missiles long before they reach there. Cruise missiles are out of the picture. In any war, the enemy will utilize ALL of its territory. Either you are telling me we shall establish air superiority over all of India, or you have to agree that we need to exploit their weaknesses and force them to defend all of their territory. Currently, all India needs to do is defend attacks coming straight from the West. Such single dimensional planning will lead you to guaranteed failure.

A big point of this thread is, if we think simply getting a 5th gen fighter will give us any edge, we are deluding ourselves. We need to make it costly for the enemy to defend it's large territory. We need to turn his strategic depth into a strategic nightmare.

Oh, BTW in this post I haven't even discussed the efficacy of our close air support. That's a different point altogether.
First a little explanation by bomber means su25 type of bomber or heavy bomber like B52 ...

B52 type of bombers in no way can avoid radar ... from whereever they came they can be seen from distance ... i would say we need heavy multirole that can also work in bombing mission ...
 
First a little explanation by bomber means su25 type of bomber or heavy bomber like B52 ...

B52 type of bombers in no way can avoid radar ... from whereever they came they can be seen from distance ... i would say we need heavy multirole that can also work in bombing mission ...

I want to leave the question of which bomber (Su25 vs B52) till the very end. Let us agree on the scenarios and the need for a bomber.

So, even a big bomber like B52 can avoid radar because:

1. If you read the excellent link posted by @MastanKhan earlier, you would know that these days B-52s carry their own radar jamming equipment.

2. A big bomber can use stand-off weapons to attack from a distance. Depending on the weapons employed, this distance can be in the range of 100s of kms.

EDIT

3. And a bomber the size of B-52 can actually have decoys attached to it to further confuse the radar.

NOTE: NOT suggesting we need to procure the likes of B-52, just explaining how a big bomber can avoid radar detection.
 
Last edited:
@Khafee , @MastanKhan , Sir G nice to read both of u . As MK talked what a Heavy can bring in PAF I m sure many here will say Y the F we need Heavy we don't need them . For those minds LMA JF-17 and MMA F-16 are enough for every thing , they will kill Rafale + SU-30s + Mif-29 + M2Ks like Eagle kill Sparrow.
The idea or ideology or strategy or what ever , The Defensive Force is a open statement of declaring your defeat or surrendering before War Starts . PAF have to come out of this (don't want to use any harsh or hard words).
LMA like JF-17 are way to short legs and way under eqm for many Modern Enemy Aircrafts (please check how many Bvr JF-17 can take and check how many Raffale ,SU-30 and Mig29 can and also for how long JF-17 can stay in air and for hoe long the others), and MMA F-16s we only have 18 latest of them rest are old upgraded and with lots of myths with them but still only 80 in total cant do S*** against 500+ modern Enemy force .

Thank u all .

Note: Before some fanboy:hitwall: or JF-17 lover hit me back let me say some about this bird. JF-17 is blessing for Pakistan:smitten::smitten: , we have to invest more in this bird , we have to bring it minimum Gripen NG level , and then we have to go for JF-17 II close to F-16 Block 60.:sniper::pakistan:
But in current air frame I will say as I always said , "Its only loading up for the sake of loading up".:p::p: If u all can guess what I mean.;););)
:devil:
 
Agreed. Have been trying to get everyone to think along these lines.



The carpet bombing was a pre-planned, deliberate shock and awe strategy and is actually what drove the Taliban from the front lines

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...1174/B52-carpet-bombing-can-oust-Taliban.html



From above, 'pin point' attacks don't do much against well entrenched enemies.



First, I am heavily against using carpet bombing inside our borders on people who in the end are Pakistanis. Such rampant display of power is best avoided because we need to win their hearts and mind. But against the Afghan Army financed by Indian/American money, after all we have done for them, the idea is to show massive force and open their eyes for good.



The scenario is a sudden agglomeration of forces preparing for attack from Afghanistan along our borders. This may be tens of miles away from the border. The size is much more than the tiny cross-border skirmishes where our artillery makes mince meat out of them, and the distance is also considerable. There wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be any civilians when the enemy amasses its forces. We should react decisively against such an outcome. Missiles are evocative of Saddam era tactics and I am do not favour them against a weak opposition. A massive aerial assault conducted with impunity shows them who is the boss exactly.



Some visuals of carpet bombing. Looks like a super efficient way of assured destruction


Also, let us agree that bombers against an Indian land based attack would be a suicide mission. So we don't need to discuss that again. So, back to the western border and that traitorous Afghan army.

Let us discuss some numbers while we are at it. Now, since I am not well versed in the destruction power of PAF's Air to surface munitions, I'll make an assumption and you can correct me. I envisage that in one bombing run a fighter can destroy 1 tank with a 500 pounder, or 1 artillery piece, or 1 vehicle, or 25 infantrymen clustered together in a tight spot. Out of nowhere, I will assume the bomber can make 10 passes before going back (again you will correct me if I am wrong). That means 1 fighter can take out at max 10 vehicles or 250 infantrymen out in the open with nothing to protect them.

If the Afghan army plans war, they will be coming at us with a force of 10000 men and 250 armor/artillery. These guys will be mobile, on the move, and as soon as the first wave of attacks comes will likely disperse, only to regroup later. That means at least 25 sorties against the vehicles, and 250 sorties against the infantry. Compare the cost of that with what a bomber could achieve.

In general, it is only rational that a bomber would definitely achieve more. It's why its called a bomber!!! So the question is, what is the best approximation we can get? Or, is it possible to buy some sort of fighter/bomber that will be relevant on multiple fronts?

Anyway, this is mission profile 1 where I propose A bomber would be useful, WITHOUT specifying which bomber.

Are we in agreement so far?

A single article from the telegraph isnt enough to support what you are proposing. The opening days of OEF were all precision strikes. When unguided munitions were used for effect, it was to support the offensives of the NA. If the large bomb runs are going to remove an entrenched enemy, then similar effects can be done by a 4 ship formation which can carry the equivalent bomb load and provide the same effect over the area.
The effectiveness of USAF bombers was not in the ability to unleash the large number of munitions but rather the long loiter time they provided.

Visuals seem impressive - battle damage assesment is not.

Compare a JDAM strike in Afhgnaistan from B-52s. Precise and exactly where the enemy is.
Versus a standard carpet bombing run.

Both look awesome, but only one really achieved exacting results.

The same can be achieved by a flight of 4 F-16s for the guided munitions or 4 x mirages(PAF has tested the F-16 loadout for 12 Mk-82s.. so theoreticaly a four ship could carry out the required effect of the unguided B-52 load.

Lets go further into costs (something that somehow escapes all new and "senior" members in their ideas), because that is where we tend to favour larger aircraft.

An average B-52 sortie costs around $70000 per hour to operate.. that is less the weapons which will run the cost to anywhere between $60000 for the unguided carpet bombing using 500lb MK 82s (51 bombs @ $1250 each) using to $768000 for the guided munitions(each 2000lb Jdam is around $48000, 16 bombs). Assuming a sortie of 1 hour.. the cost can be $130000 for unguided as average to $838000 for guided.

A similar F-16 sortie is around $22000 per hour, 12 Mk.82s are $15000 , 4 JDAMs are $192000.
Mission costs for a flight of 4 F-16s range from $148000 to $856000 for guided.

Based on that metric, the F-16 is an expensive option to utilize for the mission you suggest. However, we are ignoring that the carpet bombing mission is the only mission the PAF has to fly. The F-16s would be able to on the same mission defend themselves from both air to air and air to ground threats and still be able to complete the mission in case one of them goes down. the F-16s can be retasked, split and can continue to use their cannon to deter troops once the bombs are delivered. The B-52 can loiter overhead , provide bombing support to one AoR; but cannot do beyond that.

Finally, besides being a bomb truck for what is one single scenario, the B-52 adds up as a liability to the PAF in all other operational scenarios which make up the greater aspect of its operational tempo. All this while we are assuming that the B-52 is for sale as a point of argument.

Realistically, the heaviest aircraft that the PAF can purchase is the J-16 which when added with weapons and training alone with the increased operating costs add up to a impractical budget for the already thrify PAF.
So what then would be the costs to the PAF if it decides to purchase a heavy aircraft to carry out this carpet bombing? Even a heavy strike fighter like many factless folk here promote requires estimation of costs and not just blind wish-upon-a-star ideas that any child from the 5th grade can think of.

With an estimated budget of $2 billion next year, where will the PAF be best utilizing its money? These are the questions that plague the Air Planning Staff that also thinks of various scenarios the exist and those that could develop in the next ten years(as last years actions and this years actions will have the effect ten years later and also in anything that happens within the next 6 months).

Now lets focus on the scenario itself. The Afghan Army is currently a dysfunctional force with very little coordination in anything beyond groups of 2000 men. These men are generally basic troops that are sufferring from poor maintenance in equipment and lack of cohesive training and command.
The recent border clashes are a simple indication that they lack any basic will to stand up anything that can penetrate their usual "hide behind a rock" tactics. On their terrian, they are effective because they know it. Anything outside of it they are incapable of mounting effective offensive operations.

Lets assume the unlikely scenario that they are able to muster 10000 troops without our intelligence sources catching it. These 10000 troops and men who are on the move towards the front in differrent formations that are spread out over a large area. One fallacy you make is thinking that to stop the advance or halt the enemy's plans; all 10000 need to be killed. That is not the case and never has been the case in modern warfare. What is important is that percentage is killed or vehicles destroyed that limits the morale and mobilty of the enemy. So even 800 troops and 50 vehicles taken out can have a disorienting and even defeating effect on such a offensive. These are similar ideas to those developed for AirLand Battle in the 1980s and still apply today.

Clearly one large aircraft cannot cover the required ground on its own even with effective UAV coverage as it will have to make multiple passes to cover each avenue of attack even with smart munitions.
Multiple smaller aircraft can however, use smart munitions to cover the various axis and hit key targets that serve as wrenches within an advance. These aircraft can also return, refuel and rearm in a much shorter time than a larger aircraft to provide effective support again. Hence generating a greater number of sorties and providing a similar effect that a large aircraft may provide.

I want to leave the question of which bomber (Su25 vs B52) till the very end. Let us agree on the scenarios and the need for a bomber.

So, even a big bomber like B52 can avoid radar because:

1. If you read the excellent link posted by @MastanKhan earlier, you would know that these days B-52s carry their own radar jamming equipment.

2. A big bomber can use stand-off weapons to attack from a distance. Depending on the weapons employed, this distance can be in the range of 100s of kms.

EDIT

3. And a bomber the size of B-52 can actually have decoys attached to it to further confuse the radar.

NOTE: NOT suggesting we need to procure the likes of B-52, just explaining how a big bomber can avoid radar detection.
1. They carry big ECM equipment but against a modern ADGE they dont stand a chance.
2. Stand off from where? Land where.. think in terms of Pakistan and not the USAF.
3. The MALD is also used by US fighters, they all need it against the modern Air Defence systems during the opening act. Please see the budgetary allocations for such decoys.

Im surprised how inherintly blind most people are to costs.
 
@Khafee , @MastanKhan , Sir G nice to read both of u . As MK talked what a Heavy can bring in PAF I m sure many here will say Y the F we need Heavy we don't need them . For those minds LMA JF-17 and MMA F-16 are enough for every thing , they will kill Rafale + SU-30s + Mif-29 + M2Ks like Eagle kill Sparrow.
The idea or ideology or strategy or what ever , The Defensive Force is a open statement of declaring your defeat or surrendering before War Starts . PAF have to come out of this (don't want to use any harsh or hard words).
LMA like JF-17 are way to short legs and way under eqm for many Modern Enemy Aircrafts (please check how many Bvr JF-17 can take and check how many Raffale ,SU-30 and Mig29 can and also for how long JF-17 can stay in air and for hoe long the others), and MMA F-16s we only have 18 latest of them rest are old upgraded and with lots of myths with them but still only 80 in total cant do S*** against 500+ modern Enemy force .

Thank u all .

Note: Before some fanboy:hitwall: or JF-17 lover hit me back let me say some about this bird. JF-17 is blessing for Pakistan:smitten::smitten: , we have to invest more in this bird , we have to bring it minimum Gripen NG level , and then we have to go for JF-17 II close to F-16 Block 60.:sniper::pakistan:
But in current air frame I will say as I always said , "Its only loading up for the sake of loading up".:p::p: If u all can guess what I mean.;););)
:devil:

Hi Sir G,,, I agree with all of your statements about F16 and modern fighters of India ... I also agree that F16 and JF17 are not a complete answere to what India have ... But I would disagree with you on JF17 and not because of fan boy type of stuff but due to reality check ...

Sir all air force of the world have a mix of fighters from air superiority, interceptor, SEAD missions, attack etc etc ... Havign resource constraints air forces can keep only a certain no of tope end fighters (which in our case sadly just f16) ...

JF17 role is not to enter enemy air space and made a havoc in it ... its role is to defend our own air space for which we were required to have a low cost fighter having all the modern goodies and which we can control in terms of development ... JF17 has all those capabilities ... Now consider without jf17 you were putting F7s, mirrages against mig 29, mirrage 2000 and mki ... but now jf17 is way up in comparison to the legacy platforms ... flying within Pakistan you have support from ground radars, awacs, netcentric envirnment, SAM and lot of other benefits ... with all these benefits jf17 can face even MKI ... for example while mki coming towards Pakistan ... jf17 will have good inputs from ground radars and AWACS to engage MKI ...

Just I want to say that don't compare JF17 with typhoon or Rafael ... purpose of JF17 was entierly different ... Do you have any idea how much pressure JF17 must have taken off from F16 in patrolling and anti-terrorism role ... whereas F7 can't do anything other than interception ....

Having said this ,,, JF17 is low cost fighter and money saved from it should be used in procurement of top end fighters ... Actaully we are slightly in development of JF17 ... If we had achieved this program a decade earlier right now we should have been inducting another top end fighter till arrival of fifth generation ... But alaass,, initially there were pressler ammendment and our f16s were blocked ... than sanctions due to nuclear strike and ultimately Mr. Zardari ...

Although I think we should still be having one more top end fighter before moving to fifth generation but I think PAF will skip procurement of another fighter and might move directly to fifth generation ... however, it all depandents on PAF interest in FC-31 ....

Second prototype of FC31 just after finalization of Rafael deal seems like we are moving in that direction as last we all heard that FC31 has stopped as no one is showing interest in it ... but Allah knows the best ...

PAF has doen some mistake ,, but remember it was more back stabbing of USA rather then mistakes of PAF ...
 
A single article from the telegraph isnt enough to support what you are proposing. The opening days of OEF were all precision strikes. When unguided munitions were used for effect, it was to support the offensives of the NA. If the large bomb runs are going to remove an entrenched enemy, then similar effects can be done by a 4 ship formation which can carry the equivalent bomb load and provide the same effect over the area.
The effectiveness of USAF bombers was not in the ability to unleash the large number of munitions but rather the long loiter time they provided.

Visuals seem impressive - battle damage assesment is not.

Compare a JDAM strike in Afhgnaistan from B-52s. Precise and exactly where the enemy is.
Versus a standard carpet bombing run.

Both look awesome, but only one really achieved exacting results.

The same can be achieved by a flight of 4 F-16s for the guided munitions or 4 x mirages(PAF has tested the F-16 loadout for 12 Mk-82s.. so theoreticaly a four ship could carry out the required effect of the unguided B-52 load.

Lets go further into costs (something that somehow escapes all new and "senior" members in their ideas), because that is where we tend to favour larger aircraft.

An average B-52 sortie costs around $70000 per hour to operate.. that is less the weapons which will run the cost to anywhere between $60000 for the unguided carpet bombing using 500lb MK 82s (51 bombs @ $1250 each) using to $768000 for the guided munitions(each 2000lb Jdam is around $48000, 16 bombs). Assuming a sortie of 1 hour.. the cost can be $130000 for unguided as average to $838000 for guided.

A similar F-16 sortie is around $22000 per hour, 12 Mk.82s are $15000 , 4 JDAMs are $192000.
Mission costs for a flight of 4 F-16s range from $148000 to $856000 for guided.

Based on that metric, the F-16 is an expensive option to utilize for the mission you suggest. However, we are ignoring that the carpet bombing mission is the only mission the PAF has to fly. The F-16s would be able to on the same mission defend themselves from both air to air and air to ground threats and still be able to complete the mission in case one of them goes down. the F-16s can be retasked, split and can continue to use their cannon to deter troops once the bombs are delivered. The B-52 can loiter overhead , provide bombing support to one AoR; but cannot do beyond that.

Finally, besides being a bomb truck for what is one single scenario, the B-52 adds up as a liability to the PAF in all other operational scenarios which make up the greater aspect of its operational tempo. All this while we are assuming that the B-52 is for sale as a point of argument.

Realistically, the heaviest aircraft that the PAF can purchase is the J-16 which when added with weapons and training alone with the increased operating costs add up to a impractical budget for the already thrify PAF.
So what then would be the costs to the PAF if it decides to purchase a heavy aircraft to carry out this carpet bombing? Even a heavy strike fighter like many factless folk here promote requires estimation of costs and not just blind wish-upon-a-star ideas that any child from the 5th grade can think of.

With an estimated budget of $2 billion next year, where will the PAF be best utilizing its money? These are the questions that plague the Air Planning Staff that also thinks of various scenarios the exist and those that could develop in the next ten years(as last years actions and this years actions will have the effect ten years later and also in anything that happens within the next 6 months).

Now lets focus on the scenario itself. The Afghan Army is currently a dysfunctional force with very little coordination in anything beyond groups of 2000 men. These men are generally basic troops that are sufferring from poor maintenance in equipment and lack of cohesive training and command.
The recent border clashes are a simple indication that they lack any basic will to stand up anything that can penetrate their usual "hide behind a rock" tactics. On their terrian, they are effective because they know it. Anything outside of it they are incapable of mounting effective offensive operations.

Lets assume the unlikely scenario that they are able to muster 10000 troops without our intelligence sources catching it. These 10000 troops and men who are on the move towards the front in differrent formations that are spread out over a large area. One fallacy you make is thinking that to stop the advance or halt the enemy's plans; all 10000 need to be killed. That is not the case and never has been the case in modern warfare. What is important is that percentage is killed or vehicles destroyed that limits the morale and mobilty of the enemy. So even 800 troops and 50 vehicles taken out can have a disorienting and even defeating effect on such a offensive. These are similar ideas to those developed for AirLand Battle in the 1980s and still apply today.

Clearly one large aircraft cannot cover the required ground on its own even with effective UAV coverage as it will have to make multiple passes to cover each avenue of attack even with smart munitions.
Multiple smaller aircraft can however, use smart munitions to cover the various axis and hit key targets that serve as wrenches within an advance. These aircraft can also return, refuel and rearm in a much shorter time than a larger aircraft to provide effective support again. Hence generating a greater number of sorties and providing a similar effect that a large aircraft may provide.


1. They carry big ECM equipment but against a modern ADGE they dont stand a chance.
2. Stand off from where? Land where.. think in terms of Pakistan and not the USAF.
3. The MALD is also used by US fighters, they all need it against the modern Air Defence systems during the opening act. Please see the budgetary allocations for such decoys.

Im surprised how inherintly blind most people are to costs.

Thanks for that detailed response. So, in order to remove any last doubts in your mind that I am building up towards B-52 let me ask: do you mind giving the cost breakdown in the above scenario if we use our C-130 as a bomb truck?

@Oscar

The second post you have quoted is just explaining the capabilities of the B-52 because the other poster thinks such a large bomber cannot avoid radars. Yes, there is a cost but that's not the point.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom